RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03238 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. He be retroactively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant. 2. He be awarded the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The applicant states that he did not receive due process regarding his promotion to the grade of technical sergeant under the Extended Promotion Program (EPP). The reason he was denied promotion was his Personnel Information File (PIF) did not contain a copy of his 2 Nov 08 Physical Training (PT) test. The statement on his non-recommendation for promotion memorandum “member is not current on his physical fitness requirement” is not accurate. He did have a valid PT test which he completed on 2 Nov 08, and scored 77.25 (Good). A hard copy of the test was never placed in his PIF; however, his score was recorded in the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). On 2 May 09, he was instructed to participate in a squadron PT test. He advised his monitor that he did not feel well enough to participate and reported to the Medical Squadron. He was placed on a Duty Limiting Condition Report, and was restricted to light duty and told to avoid all exercise including fitness testing. He was also restricted from carrying a weapon until cleared medically. On 7 Jun 09, he was cleared for full fitness testing and to carry a weapon. In Oct 09, he took his PT test and scored 71.95, the first time in his military career that he did not successfully pass his PT test. AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, paragraph 4.7.3., directs commanders to notify airmen nonselected for promotion, in writing, of the reasons for nonselection, this did not occur in his case. He was never presented the non- recommendation for promotion memorandum. The applicant states that the Member Utilization Questionnaire, dated 20 Apr 10, is bias, and appears to indicate that his commander did not have accurate information as to his favorable service history and personal character. The applicant provides copies of documents that he believes will contradict some of the statements on the questionnaire. These statements collectively, has led him to believe that such misinformation and bias information formulated the “not recommended by Commander” determination. His military, civilian, and academic accomplishments are noteworthy attributes and contradict the summarizations provided on the Member Utilization Questionnaire which otherwise indicate a negative bais. In Feb 06, while serving on Title 32, Active Guard Reserve (AGR) duty, the AFGCM was discontinued, otherwise he would have been eligible. He would like the Board to determine if he is eligible for the AFGCM for his AGR service from 1 Dec 04 through 21 Jul 08, while assigned to the New York Air National Guard. In support of his requests, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of the Memorandum for Non-recommendation for Promotion, his 2 Nov 08 PT score, Member Utilization Questionnaire, email communiques, EPP Eligibility Rosters, DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, a Point Credit History Summary, and various other documents associated with his request. The applicant's complete submissions, with attachments, are at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant with a date of rank and effective date of 20 Sep 00. He retired in the grade of staff sergeant effective 13 Jun 10. The AFGCM is awarded to airmen for exemplary conduct during a three-year period of active military service, (or for a one-year period of service during a time of war). The relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility which is included at Exhibit B and E. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1K recommends denial of the applicant’s request to be retroactively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant. A1K states that based on the supporting documentation provided by the applicant, he was denied promotion by the commander because he did not have a current passing fitness test, which is within the promotion authority’s (commander’s) authority to do so. The Command’s basis for a disapproval recommendation has been established. Air Force Reserve members are promoted in accordance with Air Force Policy Directive 36-25, Military Promotion and Demotion and the Air Force Reserve Enlisted Promotion Policy, they must be recommended by the assigned supervisor and approved by the promotion authority. It is solely at the discretion of the assigned supervisor/designee to recommend promotion to the promotion authority when an individual has met the requirements for promotion to the next higher grade. Although the applicant presents handwritten scores to show he was current on his PT test at the time in question, documentation to support such a claim must be obtained from the official source, which is the AFFMS. Summarily, an AFFMS printout which displays a current passing score, in and of itself, does not substantiate a promotion authority’s intent to promote a member. The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 10 Nov 11, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comments within 30 days (Exhibit C). On 25 Nov 11, the applicant requested that his case be administratively closed. On 8 Nov 12, the applicant provided rebuttal comments to the Air Force advisory opinion and his case was reopened. The applicant states that AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, paragraph 1.20.2.5., directs the Fitness Assessment Cell (FAC) to document fitness assessment scores on a hard copy score sheet and provide such to the member for personal record. As such, his handwritten score sheet is compliant with the AFI and should be considered an official record. On 3 Nov 08, he confirmed through the Air Force Portal that his scores were input. Unfortunately, he never made a copy. He attempted to locate his PT test scores; however, he was advised they are only kept on file for one year. In referencing AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, paragraph 4.5.3., it states “Formal rules of evidence do not apply, but the panel observes reasonable bounds of competency, relevancy, and materiality.” His contention is that in the A1K letter dated 25 Oct 11, it holds that “documentation to support such a claim must be obtained from the official source…the AFFMS.” However, as mentioned above, he believes the handwritten score sheet is compliant with the AFI and is sufficient under the preponderance of evidence. Holding the rank of staff sergeant with 18 years of service draws a negative stigma. As he has established in his initial claim, a lack of administrative due process and adverse bias against him existed during the brief time he was assigned to the 914th Security Forces Squadron. The applicant's complete response is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1K recommends denial of the applicant’s request for award of the AFGCM. A1K states that after a careful review of the information provided by the applicant, it was discovered that he did not have the three years of continuous active federal military service that would qualify him for consideration for the AFCGM. The AFGCM is awarded to personnel in an enlisted status for “exemplary conduct” (exemplary behavior, efficiency, and fidelity), while in active military service of the United States. The AFGCM is awarded for continuous active federal military service for a period of three years and based upon specific recommendation of the unit commander. After a careful review, it was discovered the applicant did not have the three years of continuous service that would qualify him for the AFGCM. The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant disagrees with the disapproval of award of the AFGCM. He states that his DD Form 214 reflects a period of continuous active federal military service from 1 Dec 04 through 21 Jul 08. He provides copies of his Air Force Achievement Medal, a Certificate of Appreciation, and his Test Summary score sheet as further proof of exemplary behavior during such period. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant retroactively promoting him to the grade of technical sergeant. The applicant argues that he was denied promotion to the grade of TSgt because his PIF did not contain a copy of his 2 Nov 08 PT Test. He states that he did have a passing PT test and provides a hand-written score sheet that he believes can be used to document Fitness Assessments. However, the score sheet he provides was not sufficient to update AFFMS with an official score as it is not certified by a FAC member. While the applicant’s contentions in response to the Air Force evaluations are duly noted, we do not find them sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR). Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the OPR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has been the victim of an error or injustice. Regarding the applicant’s request for award of the AFGCM, we note that the applicant’s DD Form 214, issued in conjunction with his 21 Jul 08, reflects the AFCGM. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2011-03238 in Executive Session on 19 Nov 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 15 Aug and 21 Aug 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 25 Oct 11. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Nov 11. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Nov 13. Exhibit E. Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 12 Sep 13. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Sep 13. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Oct 13, w/atchs.